There are too many peace plans for Ukraine, and none of them suit... the United States.
As the inauguration of Donald Trump approaches, more and more discordant statements are being thrown into the information space by people who have no influence on U.S. foreign policy. However, special attention should not be paid so much to the statements and phrases—sometimes taken out of context—but to the peace plans that flood the media landscape.
The German scenario, the Finnish model, the Israeli option, the Chinese peace plan, the Brazilian one, and now, the widely discussed Keith Kellogg Plan.
This plan, to put it mildly, is not in line with common sense. It suggests that Ukraine abandons NATO, the Minsk Agreements are frozen, and sanctions on Russia are gradually lifted. It feels like a plan based on the principle of "Russia gets everything immediately," which is a trap, the purpose of which is to continue the war in 2–3 years.
On the other hand, Keith Kellogg is unlikely to prompt Donald Trump, with his MAGA agenda, to act in such a defeatist manner.
For example, the removal of sanctions from Russia would mean bringing Russian cheap oil and gas back to the energy market. Which countries are now making superprofits by occupying this niche? Correct— the United States.
Freezing the war would stop the supply of weapons to Ukraine, reducing orders for U.S. defense industry companies, costing tens of billions of dollars. And it's not just a reduction in production; it's the suspension of updating the U.S. Army's supplies, a process that was quickly launched in 2022.
By the way, even the issue with NATO isn't in Donald Trump's interest. Ukraine’s NATO membership would allow Ukrainian forces to operate on EU territory, which could reduce the U.S. military presence, lower the military budget in Europe—something Donald Trump has long criticized Europe for not contributing enough to the alliance.
And in conclusion, just one question—who would we be negotiating with?
With a country that has suffered tremendous losses in the war in Ukraine, whose army is exhausted, whose influence has shrunk to the level of communication with North Korea, where resistance to Russia-supported regimes is growing in Africa, where the dictatorship in Syria, propped up by Russian bayonets, is collapsing, and with this beaten country, we're supposed to make peace on terms that sound even better than ultimatums from the Kremlin? And this plan is to be offered by the 47th President of the United States, who dreams of making America great again?
A lot is being said about how Ukraine won't accept one plan or another being put forward in the media, or a particular scenario or model. But no one talks about what would satisfy the U.S. We should be focusing on this—U.S. interests in the matter of peace in Ukraine. On what terms and under what circumstances these interests will be fully satisfied. And, by a curious coincidence, U.S. interests align more closely with Ukraine’s vision of victory.
Given the current array of Western epistolary output from various authors with different political affiliations, none of the proposed plans serve U.S. interests—and that's a good thing.
